| |||||||||||||
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired)Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired)Posted Nov 6, 2012 14:58 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155)In reply to: Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) by nix Parent article: Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired)
I don't want to make this a political discussion more than it already is (RMS started it, hehe). But in the spirit of solving your question:
There is no need to fear the lack of belief in the magical group of people for whom up is down, violence is ethical, and rules are the opposite of the rest of us.
Security, law enforcement, transportation, education, individual reputation management, and the ten thousand other services currently monopolized by this magical group of people, are just services. There is nothing magical or special about them except for the "we say so" that the monopoly constantly spews. It's just people doing stuff.
Accordingly, if they are necessary, private actors can and will provide them in a decentralized fashion. All these services existed way before this magical group of people monopolized them under threat of punishment, and will continue to exist after people have ceased believing in their pretend superpower.
The rumors that these services can't be provided except by this magical little group of privileged people are incorrect -- in my direct experience, reality is the exact opposite of that, and the "failures" of these services are in fact sabotage (intended or otherwise) that politicians cause so these scum can sweep in as "saviors" and provide an inferior alternative.
Exempli gratia: I am from a Third World country where private police (hired as neighborhood guards) was accessible even to the poorest of the poorest living with $2 a day, and I can tell you right away that when these services were neutered politically (by a firearms ban imposed on these neighborhood guards), crime multiplied by 3 in as little as a week. 3X the number of robberies, 3X the number of burglaries, 3X the number of murders.
As for "what about the poor": ask yourself what about the poor in today's system where belief in this magical institution is at an all-time-high. They're padding prison rosters, they're unemployed, they're hopelessly dependent in the "favors" (political bribes) paid with other people's efforts by this magical institution. The institution does not care, and never will care, about the poor, for the same reason they don't care about free culture either -- they only care about public relations stunts, because they are power-hungry sociopaths. Groveling to sociopaths has never worked.
That's what I wish Richard understood.
(Log in to post comments)
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 15:32 UTC (Tue) by jackb (subscriber, #41909) [Link] There is no need to fear the lack of belief in the magical group of people for whom up is down, violence is ethical, and rules are the opposite of the rest of us.When I ask me about voting I usually tell them that as an atheist I accept the fact that prayer doesn't work, but most of them don't see the connection.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 15:41 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
I can sympathize with that because I've experienced the same thing.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 16:52 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Accordingly, if they are necessary, private actors can and will provide them in a decentralized fashion. All these services existed way before this magical group of people monopolized them under threat of punishment, and will continue to exist after people have ceased believing in their pretend superpower.As I said, the lesson of history is that this is untrue. No service for which provision to one person cannot be withdrawn without hurting the whole is usefully privatizable. Private fire services are a particularly bad example: the line between 'pay and we stop your house burning down' and 'pay and we stop your house burning down only if you're lucky enough to have a neighbour that pays too' is fine. Worse, it tended to rapidly evolve into 'do not pay and we quietly burn your house down, and use the unspoken threat of this to drum up new business'. Healthcare, in particular immunization and infectious disease control, is another similar example. Regarding your specific example, security guards are not equivalent to private police, even if they call themselves that: they are a workaround for the absence of an effective police service, more a firewall to keep the criminals out of your particular area than a means to actually prevent the criminals from committing crimes. (True private police can work, but conflicts of interest are avoided only if they are implemented via subscription from their entire force area. Since this is effectively identical to a tax I can't see a meaningful distinction between this and a system provided by a government, except that if your government is hopelessly incompetent this can provide an island of competence. The right long-term solution there is to make your government less hopelessly incompetent.)
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 21:24 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
> As I said, the lesson of history is that this is untrue.
No, sorry, you're incorrect about this. I can understand that your government has fed you this story of "everything was chaos until we monopolized all this stuff", but it's a lie.
I don't want to continue having this conversation here because it's off-topic now. If you are curious, you are invited to post to the /r/Anarcho_Capitalism or /r/AgainstAllArchons subreddits at reddit.com. There are thousands of people there qualified to answer in detail how the whole government belief system -- including the alleged "impossibility" of providing basic services without belief in government -- is a lie, complete with historical examples.
I hope you'll turn up. Have a nice day! :-)
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 23:42 UTC (Tue) by stijn (subscriber, #570) [Link] You must have taken the red pill, or at least it must have looked red. If this response seems condescending, reconsider the parent.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 7, 2012 19:03 UTC (Wed) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
I took the red pill a long time ago. Side effects include being verbally abused, shamed, insulted, mischaracterized, told to shut up, provoked and otherwise manipulated by blue-pillers. For a sample, look at the responses I have gotten here. I did become a patient person and a good judge of character as a result.
Have a nice day! :-)
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 8, 2012 11:21 UTC (Thu) by stijn (subscriber, #570) [Link] You have the hallmarks of a convert; you are willing to explain things to other people, but you already know you are in possession of the truth. Most people here have strong opinions, but are still able to recognise them for opinions, not for the truth. If you stated your case as an opinion it would garner more sympathy. You write about the responses you have gotten, but you've certainly dished out as much as you've been given. There is a fine line between defending a point of view and preaching, and you've firmly crossed it. If you think other people are deluded, then there is no point in discussion. Just leave it at you're deluded.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 7, 2012 13:52 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
What, you think I should spend my time in a virtual room with a whole *bunch* of people whose response to arguments of the form "we tried this hundreds of years ago, and it didn't work" is "you're incorrect"? That's not terribly tempting.
|
|||||||||||||